Hah, fair question - I'm a PhD student at UW-Madison, so I guess I've got a little bit of academic pride at least, and I enjoy Madison. I was kinda cool with their football team, as they were in the Leaders Division, so who cares, but honestly I'm learning to hate them after this basketball season. I had to see all their stupid fans' faces outside the Kohl Center after that miracle bullshit they pulled on us, and I was mere moments away from steering my vehicle into the masses.

Cut them a break. They're not used to winning. Heck, I've been to IU football games against Michigan where the Michigan fans outnumber the IU fans! They've had a rough run and its okay to give them their time in the spotlight. Its better that they win the conference than Sparty or Ohio, right?

No it is NOT better. Nothing is "better" about that chokin' freakin' loss. It sounds so perfectly Sparty to say, "well at least our loss prevented our hated rival from succeeding..."

No sir. Tom Crean and his program ought to be stand-alone hate objects. There is nothing good about the loss. Nothing.

As if getting pegged into a disastrous 5-seed in the Big Ten Tourney wasn't bad enough. It was a disastrous result. It makes a B1G Tourney run a near-imipossibility (four outlandishly tough games in four days, instead of three) and that may well impact our NCAA seeding.

Now, back on topic, and about that student ticket; aren't you supposed to be a current Michigan student, with an ID, to purchase and use a student Maize Rage ticket?

For the record, it's true, just in case anyone wasn't sure. The ushers walk around with these maize t shirts and provide the ultimatum, I only witnessed one and the entire Maize Rage was on the girl about it lol, but she did (very reluctantly) put it on.

Students with a ticket in the bleachers are required to wear a maize Michigan shirt (preferably basketball related), a Michigan basketball jersey, or a costume. Students who do not comply with this requirement may be moved to the blue or gold sections. It is also required that students in the bleachers stand up during game action. It looks bad on television when some of the students are sitting down.

It's interesting that these are phrased as requirements, rather than strong suggestions. I would bet that the latter part would get them in trouble with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if anyone bothered to challenge it.

Hmmm, I can't say I'm a fan of this policy. This makes the school appear desperate and sorta undermines the genuineness of the Maize Rage if they are being "forced" to look and behave the way they do. If you don't want away colors in the bleacher seats, then create policies that discourage students from selling their tickets to visiting fans.

I'm sure there wouldn't be a related thread about how those created policies are unjust. You could say the policy ensures that only that the most committed students get into the the Maize Rage rather than someone with no real interest.

I guess that they could remove such a policy and then everyone could complain about the poor atmosphere at games and the away fans in the student section. That would be fun.

I never suggested replacing one unjust policy for another. There is a big difference between discouraging certain types of ticket transactions and forcing the end-users of tickets to wear certain attire or stand.

Also, do you really believe the only thing standing between the current Maize Rage we see in the stands and the arena hellscape you describe above is this policy? I like to believe that the students are eager and willing participants, and not just the output of some Draconian, athletic department policy intended to create Crisler Indoor Stadium at all costs.

Yes, the policy removes a few specks of non-maize color from the student section, but it also removes a lot of credibility. Check that Indiana blog for proof.

I actually sat in the Wisconsin student section this year wearing UM gear (went with a friend who is a Badger) and I didn't/wouldn't expect to have been kicked out. I can tell you I definitely would not have put on Badger colors to watch the game, and if they kicked me out, I would be pissed.

Anyone know what the attitude/policy is at other B1G schools regarding student sections??

NutHouse: I've been a member for 5 years and there were no restrictions at all as to what attire you can ware as an opposing fan. I've seen Duke, Michigan, and Purdue fans/students sit in our section no problem. To the opposing fans that sat in the student section they knew someone from the school so it wasn't like they got heckled the entire game nor did the usher care what they wore.

Greatful Red: I've sat in Wisconsin student section for football and basketball and they don't care. Althought, when the ushers warn you ahead of time what may happen, it comes with territory of sitting in their student section.

Other then those two, I can't personally speak for other student sections I've sat in for away games. An OSU friend of mine who sat in the Orange Krush for a game had no problem and actually enjoy his time in the student section since most were respectful of the team he supported.

Still not sure.....I just remember the entire student section rushing the court around me, and I'm stuck standing there alone in this empty section, hoping I don't end up on ESPN.

The crowd itself was craziness. I got booed/taunted a couple of times, I went right back at them whenever Burke or THJ hit a big shot, and we all laughed at it. To me that's half the fun of going to Away games (the other half, actually winning, was sorely missed this time around) .

I have only been to one away game, and it was Mich Purdue fball. We lost 9-6. It was terrible. Some students yelled "f you" to my husband's Grandma!! I can not handle the emotional aspect of away games and possibly losing. I'm pathetic.

Indiana fans in that section were saying Michigan is a second rate school. Which is just plain stupid. I never liked Indiana basketball fans because most of them also cheer for ND football, but after the Crean event I just hate them all.

I always find it funny seeing that one person wearing there teams shirt, in the student section while there team is losing, and there making the sad face. If you pay the same price as the person beside you, wear whatever you want.

Two instances of "their" and one of "they're", and instead, we got three "there". If only there were a spot where it was supposed to be "there" and he had used a different one, we could hit the trifecta.

Wait how can you be "yes they exist!" about Inside the Hall? We mention them all the time. ITH is one of the few great independent sports blogs out there--closer to MGoBlog than just about anything except 11Warriors.

It doesn't seem like it has been updated in quite some time, but the Maize Rage has a site with a summary of the policy here - (LINK)

In essence, their site states that if you don't comply with the requirements for sitting in the bleachers (wearing opposing fan gear would be a failure to comply), you will likely be asked to move. You would also, according to this, require a ticket to sit in the student section in the first place, and according to the site, you get a wristband if your general admission ticket is for the bleachers too. I would think the IU fan was a pretty easy mark for the usher in this case.

"Funny isn't it, how naughty dentists always make that one fatal mistake."

UM is a public university. Crisler Arena is probably what would be considered a "limited public forum" for purposes of expression--meaning as long as it's open, speech restrictions imposed there would be subject to "strict scrutiny." Strict scrutiny requires the M's rule be "narrowly-tailored" to achieve a "compelling state interest."

Speech restrictions almost never survive strict scrutiny, but I think there would be a reasonable chance of that here. Is creating a uniformly pro-Michigan "Maize Rage" area a compelling interest? In the college hoops context, maybe it is. Is requiring the IU fan to wear a M shirt or move to a different part of the arena "narrowly-tailored?" I think so, but maybe someone could come up with something even more narrowly-tailored.

"You will suffer humiliation when the team from my area defeats the team from your area." -- The Onion

First of all, it might come down to a safety issue. If the adminiistrators are genuinely concerned about opposing fan safety, then its pretty valid.

Secondly, the student section is intended only for Michigan students. You can't go to some black tie state dinner in a tuxeedo shirt and expect to be let in because it's held on public state property. I don't think requiring appropriate dress in any way violates freedom of speech.

"This is the EMU game, not the emo game."

I don't think the safety issue is legit. You can do plenty of other things to assure safety that don't involve restricting speech. For instance, you can post security guards and have rules against assault. I think there would need to be a pretty convincing record of M students beating up opposing fans before you could justify a rule like this on safety grounds, and I don't think you could establish that record.

Presumably, the state dinner example you gave would occur in a "non-public forum," where speech restrictions can be imposed so long as they are "content-neutral and reasonable in light of the forum." Requiring formal dress at a fancy dinner meets this requirement.

I don't think the policy is unconstitutional either, but someone who feels strongly that it is could probably make a reasonably convincing argument.

"You will suffer humiliation when the team from my area defeats the team from your area." -- The Onion

"For instance, you can post security guards and have rules against assault."

Because as this thread shows, people always follow the rules and don't complain about them. It is already against the rules to assault anyone (not to mention the law), and security guards are only helpful once they arrive. That 45 seconds it takes them to knife through the crowd to get to the altercation could be very dangerous.

"Presumably, the state dinner example you gave would occur in a "non-public forum," where speech restrictions can be imposed so long as they are "content-neutral and reasonable in light of the forum." Requiring formal dress at a fancy dinner meets this requirement."

I'm not so confident that the STUDENT SECTION at a university basketball game is really a public venue. It was intended for a specific audience, and tickets were only sold by the university TO that audience. Nobody else. If those are then transferred third party, I don't think it is the university's fault if that third party is unhappy with some of the restrictions placed on them at said ticketed event.

"This is the EMU game, not the emo game."

The fact is, M students don't knife opposing fans just for wearing their gear. So if M's justification for the rule is safety, it fails because it's unnecessary.

Regarding who is in the audience, keep in mind that a M student could, theoretically anyway, buy a student section ticket and show up wearing an IU shirt. Now, I am pretty sure the IU fan in this example was not a M student. But you need to have the same rule for everybody.

"You will suffer humiliation when the team from my area defeats the team from your area." -- The Onion

They do! Where does it say that opposing fans must wear Michigan gear? It says anyone seated in the lower student section. So it doesn't matter if it's an IU or M student not in Maize gear. They will have to change.

As far as M students not knifing people: Try to go to court with the argument that, "Well, It just doesn't happen!"

"This is the EMU game, not the emo game."

Okay, but a rule like "everybody must wear yellow" is not content-neutral. Imagine, in a different context, a rule that "everybody must pray to Jehova" or "everybody must hate the Russians."

"It just doesn't happen" is a very persuasive argument in a constitutional free speech context if the record shows that, indeed, the problem that the government is suppressing speech in order to prevent is not, in fact, a realistic concern.

I actually litigated a case like this once. i was representing an organization of public housing tenants who had been told by the housing authority that they would no longer be permitted to post anything whatsoever on the exterior surfaces of their doors. The main reason the housing authority gave was a concern that tenants would post inflammatory material that would lead to arguments and disputes--and potentially violence--between neighbors. But, tenants had been posting things on their doors in this particular housing authority for decades, and there was no record of there ever being a violent incident prompted by a door posting. That was a very helpful fact in winning the case. FYI, the case went to our state supreme court and was decided 5-4, so you can see how close of a question this is.

"You will suffer humiliation when the team from my area defeats the team from your area." -- The Onion

As someone who was part of the the Maize Rage Core for several years I can provide some insight to the rule:

You will not be kicked out of the arena for not wearing maize. You will be relocated to the upper deck. In the context of the ITH article, "leave" means leave the blechers or Sec. 130.

Michigan is not the only program with this policy. The Paint Crew (Purdue) also has a similar policy.

The policy was put into place a few years ago when your M-Card was required with your ticket voucher to sit in the student section. Thus, with the exception of graduate students, it would not be possible for students from other schools to sit in the bleachers without using a fraudulent M-Card (a big university violation).

The ticket is for the student section, not the lower of the student section. Thus, it is a reasonable requirement for students who wish to sit in the lower bowl of the student section to wear maize. Just as it is a requirement to sit in the lower bowl to be one of first ~550 students to line up for the game.

There is no rule preventing oposing fans from rooting for their own team.

No. I am saying that this was the rationale behind the policy being put in place. You can form your own opinion on whether or not it is a good policy. I don't think there is anything wrong with the rule but maybe the maize rage needs to re-evaluate their policy.

I admit up front I attended and still financially support both univesities. That said, it's a stupid rule. If you're traveling to a road game, you have a ticket, and you're a respectful fan you can expect to put up with some good natured harrassment for supporting the opposition from the home fans. But to be forced to wear the other team's gear or be shipped out is a dumb policy that a university the caliber of Michigan's should be above. For that matter all respected public institutions should be above it. Sports are fun. They're not supposed to be draconian in nature.

can't we just say, "if true, f'd up." What looks like it was missing--given the written Maize Rage section policy--was that people should have been told they would be moved to another section. If the threat was that they would have to leave, the ushers had it wrong, plain and simple.

This is dumb. It reeks of marketing guru pretension masked as good intentions. It's more "The Brand, The Brand, The Brand." A kid in an IU shirt is going to get razzed. He knows that. But if he did what he needed to do to get into the bleachers, be an adult and let him get what's coming to him. Don't hand him a shirt and an ultimatum. It makes Michigan look petty and small. If there's a real problem, just move him over to the parents' section in the bleachers right behind the IU bench and he can blend in. Problem solved, no confrontation, kid probably even has a better time. Everyone goes home happy, and there's no blog post making this a story.

Crisler doesn't need to be one of those venues where the staff gets smug and legalistic when it comes to opposing fans. We get enough of that everywhere else. That's not the way things have been here. Ever. There is no expectation that an arena should be open only to home fans, nor should Michigan go out of its way to tell them to can it. Everyone has a right to cheer for their team, and if Athletics is going to allow student tickets to be validated, they have no reason to clamp down on things like this.

And really, if you're going to let people into the Maize Rage with bright red lobster costumes, green army fatigues, and all sorts of other stupid costumes that aren't maize, which have always been a part of the Maize Rage schtick in one form or another going back to the beginning, then you have to be that inconsistent with everyone.

What if one school exploits something like this and "takes over" some of another school's student section? Like, what if 50 Michigan students went and camped out and took over a little section in the Izzone, or vice versa? If one student could do it, why can't 100?

Again, if they "shouldn't think about sitting in it," why does Michigan allow student tickets to be validated?

You can't have it both ways. Either make it ONLY students with MCards in Michigan gear (opposing team color "costumes" apparently excluded), or keep the policy as-is where anybody can pay $40 or whatever the current rate is to make a student ticket into a regular ticket.

A valid ticket is a valid ticket. Under the current rules, a student ticket isn't exclusively a student ticket if it has a validation sticker on it. Putting clothing color requirements along with that ticket, IMO, is a stretch that makes our athletic department look insecure and petty.